and THAT is a lot closer to describing root cause of 'the problem.'

Funny how unions tend to fight for monopolistic powers while trying to deny those 'powers' to corporations .... the irony of it all... :)

Chill, allo...

"She should be able to quit and find a new job that does not conflict with her religious beliefs and she is willing to do." She already has that right. Case closed.

She should also be knock, knock, knocking on heaven's door someday.

Some so-called "rights" may be defined by agreement. However, the "natural rights" 'ewv' mentions are derived from the requirements inherent in being human. They are not defined by consensus. :)

I did not take offense or insult and was not arguing. I simply restated the position more closely connected with what else had been written.

Freedom of religion does not mean exemption from the law Davis is refusing to follow. It does not mean that religious public officials can impose their religion on others. No law says otherwise. That is why she is in jail for defying a court order, which is exactly where she should be.

The distinction between Davis being a state employee versus a private individual is morally essential. She is trying to exploit her power as a state official to impose her religion on others.

Compliance is very simple. They can't exclude gays. That's why Davis is in jail for defying a court order.

For rational people the broader issue is over government corruption of concepts on behalf of pandering to activists. For Davis none of that seems to matter -- she is one big religious emotion screaming for a privileged status. None of what she has said indicates that her actions would change regarding "civil union" instead of "marriage".

Thank you.

Jan

Freedom of religion is the law.

Call me names next time.

The necessity for government to "define" marriage is caused by the immoral laws that require anyone to ask permission and get a government stamp of approval to get married in the first place. Without them there would be no debate over the legal status given by the word "marriage". The entire purpose of such laws is control, to divide people into smaller groups and pit them against each other. It is working remarkably well with this issue because neither side, as usual, is taking a rational approach to it. This is the religious conservatives turn at showing us what they really want.

Kevin, I see two issues here. One - the issue is not individual rights, for gays or anyone else - these could very well have been accomplished by civil unions with the same rights and responsibilities as a marriage. That would not be sufficient for the Progressives/socialists. They need to rub it into the face of all others. Other people's rights, opinions or morals do not exist.
Second, there is the issue of the State reaffirming it's power. Don't be confused by Davis being a state employee. She is bucking the State itself (especially the Federal gov). That, the State cannot tolerate. Just like Ruby Ridge and Waco, the State will go to any extent to instill fear of itself onto us. That's the part that scares me most.

I have understood you very well but doing so has required me to make certain assumptions until your intentions were proven in further comments. I'm not sure everyone else here is giving you that leeway and maybe your words are not quite as clear as you think they are. I am also quite sure of what Solver was getting at and you have managed to start arguing with someone who's statement basically agreed with you but was phrased completely differently and required certain assumptions to be made until the intent was proven by reading through the WHOLE comment. You have taken offense where none is given and you have taken insult where none is intended. Is that a statement of your emotional state or is it just the way you are? Don't know, doesn't matter, but arguing with those who agree with you but don't write like you is probably a waste of your time and effort.

And in many those laws define marriage as being between one man & one woman. Until the laws are rewritten, SCOTUS decision contradicts the written law.

If Kentucky codifies marriage in that way, she is following the law....as currently written... SCOTUS are the deciders of constitutional validity under our constitution. But a decision from them requires implementation and compliance at federal, state, and local levels. Something that takes time to accomplish. Something that our professionally angry victim filled society no longer allows. SCOTUS could forestall a lot of problems if they put some implementation timeframes on these types of decisions. Expecting instant compliance is unreasonable. At least give the people trying to comply time to do so.

This is one of those myriad consequences of any SCOTUS decision. Made orders of magnitude more problematic by activists deliberately picking places to push to get in the news cycle. There are 120 counties in KY, if the goal was getting married they could have gone to plenty of other places to accomplish that.

This whole fight is not over whether or not gays can codify a relationship per se. It is over whether or not the word marriage is applied to that relationship.

If legal relationships for tax and other purposes renamed something else, civil union for example, this whole "issue" could be legally resolved. Simply make the terms equivalent from a legal standpoint, and keep the government out of marriage completely.

That would solve the problem legally. However it would not meet the goals of activists.

Martyr for a cause are martyrs regardless of the hatred against them . When you stand alone, you stand alone..the popularity, or unpopularity of ones'cause does not negate the bravery of voluntarily accepting censure and punishment. Wrong laws are wrong laws weather they be race based or moral belief base. suffering in silence does not accomplish as much as suffering in public.

The bullet proof teacher retainer system is due to the union political power not the tenure. Teachers guarantee their votes to the dems who guarantee that the worst shall be first . This is the opposite of tenure but both sides are guilty of complicity to protect the guilty.

and if the culture crosses mama nature, there will be difficulties.
the natural state of humankind involves interpersonal respect
which is more clearly identified in the u.s. than anywhere
before, on earth, as I understand things. . didn't Rand
make this clear in her writings? -- j
.

Exactly. The court's action is creating a martyr out of a bigot. The MLK thing is a stretch, but it's ironic to see bigots taking up the same non-violence direct action.

I'm not sure what he was getting at, but am trying to be as clear as I can myself. Don't make assumptions about emotional states from typed statements!

Freedom of religion has nothing to do with this case. Freedom of religion does not mean exempt from law.

You wrote, fully, "She has a First Amendment right. She should not be forced to serve unbelievers or people her religion has damned, if her religion does not allow it." That is not what the First Amendment says, but no one is forcing her to do that. She does not have to take a government job that requires non-discrimination in dealing with the public (in issuing marriage licenses to all who legally qualify). If she does choose to work in that job then she must do the job as required. Her religion or any other objection is irrelevant to that. She has no right, First Amendment or otherwise, to redefine a government job serving the public equally to be something else. The context here is that it is a government job in a government that is supposed to be for everyone. Government officials do not act by right in the functions of their public position; they are limited in what they can do in that capacity, and must do it.

There is a legitimate question of the invalidity of changing the concept of "marriage" for gays, as opposed to "civil unions" accomplishing the same legal status without mangling the language by government fiat. But the court has combined them in a package deal, Davis' religious arguments make no such distinction, no bureaucrat has any right to make her own law denying the resulting civil marriage whatever it is called, and appeals to religion are no basis for a claimed privileged political statism in the name of, of all things, her "conscience". She is the aggressor and she has clearly deliberately turned this into a religious issue of what she calls "God's law" as an excuse for her illegal behavior directed against others.

It illustrates the classic faith-leads-to-force progression, which snake can only be cut off at its head by ruling out faith as a substitute for reason in all forms on principle. Those religious conservatives supporting the fallacious Davis propaganda line are the opposite, militantly demanding that their faith be accepted as the premise for whatever they want because it is faith. It's not that they want freedom of thought regardless of the content and method of thinking, they demand acceptance of anti-reason because it is anti-reason, just as they base all "freedom of conscience" arguments not on freedom of the rational mind, but specifically on religion as such. Their entire approach is fundamentally antagonistic to Ayn Rand's philosophy of reason in particular.

I was imagining what her lawyers' next 'defensive arguments' would be for her to keep her job despite her failure to do it... that's all...

and yes, the debts 'politicians have accumulated' are going to screw us all, but keep in mind... they were elected by US voters, too. (as were moron politicians all around the world... Greece as an epitome.)